Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

First time accepted submitter menno_h writes "WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says he has hired lawyers to investigate how to sue Prime Minister Julia Gillard for defamation."
Assange "says comments made by Ms Gillard in 2010 that WikiLeaks acted illegally in releasing US diplomatic cables have affected the viability of his organisation. 'Mastercard Australia, in justifying why it has made a blockade that prevents any Australian Mastercard holder donating to WikiLeaks, used that statement by Julia Gillard,' he said."

you may or may not support Assange or Wikileaks - but the lawsuit will be interesting: Mastercard used a semi-official statement by Julia Gillard to justify the blocking; is this a good-enough argument?

The thing is does he have a case. Assange very much enjoys the public spot light. He wants to be where he is. The responsible thing for him would have been to hand wiki leaks over to some one he trusted to maintain wiki leaks integrity. Now wiki leaks reputation lives and dies with Julian. For the last two years wiki leaks has been sidelined because of his antics

He should sue MasterCard. It was MasterCard that cut him off. Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he do

Currently, the only thing keeping Mr Assange from torture and death is the public spotlight. Every time the public starts to forget about his plight you can rightly expect him to make a stink to get our attention again.

Currently, the only thing keeping Mr Assange from torture and death is the public spotlight.

Torture and death from whom? It wouldn't be the US. Not that they were legally torture under US law as determined at the US Department of Justice, but the US only waterboarded three terrorists [go.com], the most recent in about 2003, (although it continues to routinely waterboard its own pilots and special forces members for training - thousands of them), and President Obama stopped enhanced interrogations [reason.com], so no "torture" by the US. The US hasn't put a spy to death in the 60 years since the Rosenbergs [wikipedia.org], and that was

He's right. At one time, I "had a friend" that would have put a bullet through Assanges' head on "unofficial" orders. Government pukes play dirty by using guys like "my friend", and always have. If you think otherwise, you're a very naive person that thinks too well of the power-seeking people in government. Thank you for being like that. People like you actually try to make the world a nice place to live in.

He's right. At one time, I "had a friend" that would have put a bullet through Assanges' head on "unofficial" orders.

Is that a fact? And your friend actually told you this*? Leaves me wondering what kind of a friend [stolenvalor.com] you have there, sharing what would obviously be highly classified information. ..if true. . . for you to spread around? Even more so, does he have friends [progress-index.com] . . . . or maybe a team (?) of [centraljersey.com] his [14news.com] own [tampabay.com] preparing [palm-beach...lawyer.com] for action [militarytimes.com] against Assange . . . . maybe with FBI [fbi.gov] support [fbi.gov]?

I would think that when it comes to Assange, even if the US government was inclined to direct action, they would be open to following Napoleons a

If you think otherwise, you're a very naive person that thinks too well of the power-seeking people in government. Thank you for being like that. People like you actually try to make the world a nice place to live in.

No, people like that make the world a worse place by allowing authorities to abuse their power. If you can't even concieve that the people who run the country are by and large worse than those in our prisons, you can't do anything to fix it.

If you even speak with Julian Assange, you can be killed. Not kidding:http://news.yahoo.com/jullian-assange-enemy-state-023345613.html

The US government successfully talked parts of the Australian government into attempting to charge him with Treason... but the Australian federal police commission rejected the argument after determining he had broken no Australian laws.

The only reason the mans not dead, is because he's famous. The US government, my government, has already tortured and killed people for less. Both during the Bush and Obama administrations. Our governments stance is that Alkiada is the same as a foreign government, so our actions against them are the same as if we were fighting a foreign government, we are not dealing with criminals. And yet, when we caught their "head of state" we executed him in front of his family. Which violates US law. They literally knelt him down, in front of his wife and shot him in the head. Read the account of the navy seal that wrote about it. Then this very same president declared a US citizen an "enemy combatant" and has a drone fire a missile into his home, while he was on foreign soil. No trial, no justice, just summary execution. This is our government. We can debate weather this is all justifiable or not, but the fact that Mr Assange has angered the US government enough to put his life in grave danger is a fact.

Al Qaida is not being treated as a government, in nature it is essentially like pirates - Hostis humani generis [wikipedia.org] - enemies of all mankind.

Bin Laden wasn't a head of state but the military leader of a band of unlawful combatants and war criminals. Killing him was not a violation of US law, but a strike against an enemy military commander, no different than the planned ambush and killing of Admiral Yamamoto [wikipedia.org].

I have never seen any claim that the SEALs made Bin Laden kneel, but rather they shot him on sight. I

George W. Bush and Barack Obama weren't heads of state but the military leaders of a band of unlawful combatants and war criminals.

FTFY.

President Obama banned enhanced interrogation techniques

Yeah, he did it with NDAA, I suppose. See Bradley Manning's treatment, which qualifies as a torture (not in the USA but in countries who have the notion of human rights and decency).

As to a missile for Assange - those are being shot at terrorists trying to kill people, or those directly supporting them. Assange just doesn't qualify.

Come on. What the USA does in Afghanistan and Iraq (but not limited to those places) is terrorist in nature, which with the help from Manning Wikileaks proved beyond a shadow of doubt. And Assange does qualify for an "accident."

I take it you mean: Forged a Troll From Your post, as that's all your edit is.

Yeah, he did it with NDAA, I suppose. See Bradley Manning's treatment, which qualifies as a torture (not in the USA but in countries who have the notion of human rights and decency).

Actually it was an executive order.

Which countries? Austrialia?

Solitary confinement [sa.gov.au] After an absence of nearly nineteen years, in 1990 the concept of solitary confinement was reinstated. Under Section 36 of the Correctional Services Act 1982 the Chief Executive Officer may direct that a prisoner be kept separately and apart from all other prisoners within the prison if in his or opinion it is desirable:

Come on. What the USA does in Afghanistan and Iraq (but not limited to those places) is terrorist in nature, which with the help from Manning Wikileaks proved beyond a shadow of doubt.

Indefinite detention is the accepted norm in military conflicts - you can be held until the conflict is over. So, I'm afriad you are quite wrong there. It is also used in many countries to keep very dangerous prisoners behind bars.

And to your other post, you stupid troll, I did not specify a country and you're cherrypicking. That is trolling.

We've already seen that Australia uses it, but so do Japan [abc.net.au], UK [sacc.org.uk], US [thephoenix.com], Sweden [thelocal.se] (and Sweden [thelocal.se]), Norway [pbs.org], and many other countries one generally considers part of the civilized world. Looks like you don't quite have this right.

Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case.

What you are describing is called persecution, what we are talking about is called defamation. The PM called him a crook in public, MC cut him off and quoted the PM as the reason.He was clearly defamed and suffered financially because of it. If the PM wanted to call him a crook in public she could have legally done so under parliamentary privilege, she is a lawyer and knows all this but for some reason she chose to ignore it.

If Gillard made the comments but nothing came of them, you'd get a much smaller payout in a defamation case.But the MC bit proves the comments caused financial damage, not just damage to his character. = Bigger payout.

It would be premature to sue MasterCard when they can fall back on the defense that they relied on the statements of the Prime Minister. Deferring to the authority of the government seems quite reasonable and makes for a compelling defense.

The first step is to have the original statement ruled as libelous before tackling MasterCard. They can still say that they acted in good faith at the time, but it means that they could not as easily justify continuing to block payments to Wikileaks.

It seems like you're saying it would be acceptable for MasterCard to be forced to transact, or serve as an intermediary to transactions for, business with Assange or WikiLeaks. Is this what you're saying?

Actually, I made no judgement call at all one way or the other. I was talking about the legal tactics of MasterCard's defense and of Assange needing to address the actual defamation that they allege has occurred rather than an outcome of that defamation claim.

It seems like you're saying it would be acceptable for MasterCard to be forced to transact, or serve as an intermediary to transactions for, business with Assange or WikiLeaks. Is this what you're saying?

I don't know what the original posters intent was. But as for me, given that MasterCard 1) is a corporation, that is an artificial entity created by government fiat, and therefore not possessed of any natural rights; and 2) is a financial institution, and therefore should be subject to a higher level of scr

I doubt he enjoys being prisoner in an embassy. I doubt he enjoys being unable to ever have sex again without knowing if this is a CIA trap. I doubt he enjoys his wikileaks organization to be labelled half-terrorist and having lost a few millions of donations.

He doesn't enjoy spotlight. He needs it to survive, because otherwise, he will die in an accident without anyone noticing.

Why wouldn't he? He was accused of criminality. Perhaps I'm misremembering, but I thought accusations of criminality were one of a species of imputations that are regarded as prima facie defamatory?! In any case, I don't think it would be overly burdensome to prove that calling someone a criminal is liable to lower their reputation in the eyes of upstanding citizens, or?

He should sue MasterCard. It was MasterCard that cut him off.

Under what head of action? Are you claiming MasterCard is under an contractual obligation to process payments to Wikileaks? Or do you imagine their liability is tortious?

Unless he can find the official government document instead of random remarks he doesn't have a case.

The PM made a defamatory statement outside the protection of parliament. Why does he need to find an official government document?

Suing anyone but MasterCard is a publicity stunt that is nothing but an ego stroke for him.

I'm not sure that MasterCard even comes into the question of whether he can sue. After all you don't need to show monetary damage to sue in defamation. Wouldn't the fact that MasterCard may have acted on the basis of the PMs alleged defamation only be relevant when it came to decide damages?

You know, despite your authoritative pronouncements on this matter, I'm not even sure you are an Australian lawyer.

It is far more about the spotlight than the case. He knows exactly what he is doing and he is doing it well. The girls in Sweden are yesterdays news and he wants the spotlight on him now. It does not matter if he wins or not, if he can garner support from the idea of being unfairly treated he will probably actually benefit from losing. I used to work with Greenpeace and we used to do things that were clearly illegal but the companies involved would always be the ones pressuring the police to drop the ch

He's announcing it early before he's even sure he has a good case, and reports in the Australian media indicate that because the comments were made more than one year ago it's beyond the time limit. There is no precedent for extending the time limit if the defamed party knew of the remarks, so apparently there's almost no chance of it succeeding. (crikey.com.au) has more detail.

This is a textbook case of how defamation can result in actual material loss. It is obvious from your statements that you disagree with the defamation law, but right now it is a law on our books and so it is quite justifiable to sue the Prime Minister for this. If you are so against the practice then lobby your representative to change the law, but I doubt that you will be successful.

And we are all free not the respond. So, as a weapon it is entirely ineffective. The power is in the response, not the speech.

You are incorrect. The power is not in the response, because if it was then Assange could just ignore the PM's claim and there would be no problem. But there was a problem. In this case MasterCard has allegedly based (at least in part) their decision to block the payments on the government's statement.

And what if MasterCard didn't block the payment? They could have conceivably ended up facing a public backlash against them because they were seen to facilitate the funding of an alleged illegal group. So the

So when Arthur C Clarke fought false pedophile accusations made in a tabloid newspaper via a libel suit, he should have lost?

Words have consequences, particularly when they are false and come from the mouth of the PM or anyone else with influence. The Westminster system holds politicians to account for their words via a concept called "defamation". If said defamation merely causes hurt feeling then there is no legal recourse for the "victim", similarly if a "reasonable person" would be unlikely to believe the words then there is no case to answer. eg: I can say that the PM has sex with donkeys but a "reasonable person" could be expected to know I was bullshiting.

Everything changes if the victim can show material harm (as in someone refusing to do business with you because of those words), the defamation concept is there to redress that injustice. To balance that political level of accountability, politicians also have right called "parliamentary privilege" which is basically a license to make false accusations when speaking in parliament. The "proper" thing for the PM to do if she believes somebody has broken the law is to make a formal complaint to the police or raise it under parliamentary privilege, she should not spout her opinion at a press conference, and she knows it!

It's a long standing (legal and social) tradition in Oz and the UK that politicians should keep their nose out of the judiciary by staying silent on the issue of guilt until a conviction has been secured. Failure to do so can result in a miss-trial which could allow real criminals to walk. I simply don't believe the PM is ignorant of all this, she did what she did knowingly and should be held to account.

PM's, FM's and Attorney General's, these people should be setting a role model for society as to how our democracy is supposed to function. One of the corner stones of that democracy is "innocent until proven guilty" that replaced "trial by ordeal" in the UK around 1000yrs ago. So when I see my political "leaders" who routinely request judicial investigations standing in front of a mob pointing fingers, I KNOW they are deliberately subjecting that person to "trial by media".

OTOH, around the same time our PM was deliberately smearing Assange, our foreign minister was one of the first politicians on the planet to stand up and say the "free press" rights of Assange should be respected in the same way the rights of the three mainstream newspapers had been respected. Despite the fact the cables were "politically embarrassing" to the FM at the time, he correctly questioned why Assange was being universally attacked while the NYT, Guardian, and De-Speigal (sic?) were being praised by "reasonable people".

Aside from all that, libel is a civil suit not a criminal charge, you don't go to jail for it, you pay for the damages you caused. When you are being metaphorically burnt at the stake, it hardly matters if the "lies" were uttered out of malice or ignorance. Clarke took such risks so seriously he refused to pick up his knighthood for the two years it took him to find justice (in the form of a printed apology). If I were the Judge in Julian vs Julia I would not award financial damages, I would order the PM to hold a press conference and publicly apologize to Assange for the accusation, and I would do the same if Hicks were to sue Howard and/or Ruddock.

As for MC they're the "reasonable person" who believed the false accusations made by the PM.

I'm so glad you're in the minority. Misleading a person into a false understanding of reality causes them real harm. It damages their ability to behave in a fashion that is sane and wise. That's why it's central to warfare, for fucks sakes.

A man who lies to a million people has caused far more harm than any serial killer or rapist, and the punishment should be that much harsher.

It doesn't matter if I am "enlightened" and see through the lies, because I'm at risk of a million misinformed men and women des

"What would Hitler be if nobody went along? A Charlie Chaplin stunt double, at best."Yep. Proof that when the people get sick of being manipulated, just about any yahoo willing to say "Lets get those fuckers" will do the trick...

It means in the real world, there are scheming lying sneaky manipulators causing stupid people to behave in self destructive ways, and it regularly becomes necessary for the human race to purge them when they get out of hand. It's an entirely predictable response to such behavior, which makes it deserved by the recipients.

Say an action is not illegal because a prosecutor decided not to file charges is nonsensical; it just means the benefits of prosecution doesn't exceed the costs. Anyways Gillard only has to find one thing illegal in the matter to blow Asange's suit out of the water, even the most trivial will do. One thing that will be interesting is this is a civil suit, Asange is probably going to be compelled to return home as a witness to testify and I'm not sure that's what he will want to do.

Really? A guy that suborned a US Army private to illegally give him access to classified diplomatic cables wouldn't do something if he didn't have a good case? Oh, wait he might sue ME now because I said he did something illegal that he has bragged that he did only I said that it is illegal. Well it IS illegal to do what he did. You might disagree with me about whether it ought to be illegal but there's no real question that it IS.

In what country? Its certainly not illegal in Australia to leak classified *US* documents. Possibly illegal to leak Australian documents - I'm not sure about that.Just like if someone in the US leaked Iranian top secret documents, they'd probably get a handshake from the FBI not arrested.

The US is not the world government. Just because they say it is top secret and illegal doesn't make it so and the rest of the world will rightly ignore them.

That probably depend on the mutual assistance treaties between the US and Australia, I suspect given the close cooeration between our countries during WWII, Vietnam and Afghanistan it probably is illegal.

I cannot understand why so many people worship this cowardly narcissistic wretch.

Just like a fucking politician. I AM NOT an Assange supporter, I AM supporter of the basic principles of the West Minster system and the rule of law. However they don't mean much if we have to ignore them just to drag coward into court.

Assange has put himself in indefinite detention rather than face court. Of course the US could simply take away his excuse and have "Scooter" proclaim the US will not interfere with his passage to and from Sweden to face his accuser, but I figure the spooks would rather e

Mastercard is under no obligation to do business with Mr. Assange., regardless of the reason.

True but irrelevant.

"English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual or individuals in a manner that causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of them." (Australian defamation law is basically the same as English)

I should mention that I was only speaking of the law as it stands. I happen to disagree with defamation laws in general and even more so when the law suit is brought by an alleged champion of unlimited free speech but that's a different issue.

. MasterCard can choose to do business with whomever. Assange is notorious, you cant force people to do business with notorious people if they choose not to. In what way did Mastercard act in bad faith?

Doesn't matter, no charges were filed. They acted on a vague public statement. That is definitely in bad faith. Now we find that Assange really doesn't believe in free speech when he's the target. Wikileaks doesn't need him, he should just give himself up, so we can get back to discussing the much more important issue of what's in the leaks....unless you want to argue that we should never take the word of the Prime Minster at face value.

While I'm not a fan of Mr. Assange (quite the opposite really), I find the way he has been treated by our government absolutely deplorable. Especially when you consider how people like David Hicks (trained with terrorists) and Shappele Corby (convicted drug smuggler) have had the government behind them trying to get them home.

Help avoiding an arrest warrant or help getting him back to Australia? I have no doubt what so ever that Australia would allow him back. (probably followed quickly with complying with the Interpol warrant and sending him off to Sweden though.)

Especially when you consider how people like David Hicks (trained with terrorists)... have had the government behind them trying to get them home.

David Hicks did not have any help from the Australian government. He was left to rot in Guantanamo for five years without being charged for anything. The government's response was absolutely deplorable, especially considering how UK citizens were pulled out from Guantanamo. Compare Jack Straw's efforts compared to Philip Ruddock or John Howard sometime.

Citizens have rights. Even if they're idiots. Even if they're dangerous. Otherwise, if someone wants to see you abandoned in some god-forsaken hole they just point and say "he's an idiot", or more likely "he's dangerous". This is the reason there is process and there are institutions, and why we should all be anxious that they're almost completely eroded in some cases.

Whoever marked this "Troll" clearly doesn't know about what's been preoccupying Australian news over the last week. (Answer: Navel-gazing, as usual, only this time it involves dirty personal attacks against the PM.) In context, this was a good point.

For the benefit of those who are unaware, here's the brief summary: Julia Gillard's father died a couple of weeks ago, and right-wing radio-shock-mouthpiece Alan Jones (for the non-Australians, or even non-Sydneyites, he's roughly the Australian equivalent of Rush Limbaugh: moderate-sized but dedicated following, and self-parody to everyone who doesn't listen to his show) decided to use that in a very insensitive cheap shot at the PM [abc.net.au]. The remarks were made at a private function, but of course, nothing is private in the Internet era. Alan Jones has since issued a sincere, rambling semi-notpology.

The point being that the PM's PR people are currently enjoying a grace period where personal attacks are Not Cool. The PM herself is, of course, probably not enjoying the fact that her father just died.

On the other hand, Underground screened last night. From that perspective, this is the best of all times to go on the offensive. It's unfortunate that the two events coincided, but there's not a lot you can do about that.

The grandparent was making a point regarding the charges against Assange and the use of the term rape (or its translated equivalent) in those charges. I won't give you a whoosh, because I expect that Swedish is your first language, and English your second.

You can't sue prosecutors for accusing you of a crime, in general. This official wasn't a prosecutor, but does the principle apply?

I wonder if Assange has considered a business interference suit as well. Inducing Mastercard to go back on a contract might be a tort, depending on the outcome of some questions I'm not even qualified to enumerate.

She is not protected. The Australian prime minister can say what she wants in parliament, and be protected by parliamentary privilege [wikipedia.org], but as soon as she says it outside parliament, in a press interview for example, which is where she slurred Assange, she can be sued.

If the US government was intent on killing him he would have been in a car accident or had a "heart attack" more than a year ago.

The US government isn't very smart on a whole, but they aren't profoundly stupid most of the time either. He hasn't broken any US law, were he in the US they wouldn't dare try him for a crime. They tried that with other people a long time ago, it was called the Pentagon Papers trials and it resulted in the government being handed their asses.

The government is not one person, so it doesn't actually have intelligence.

but they aren't profoundly stupid most of the time either

In fact the US government is largely remarkably effective at pursuing its goals. There have been notable setbacks, but for those in power, even those have tended to be profitable. We might have "lost" the Viet Nam War, but it was great for Monsanto. Indeed, they will be able to profit from it all over again shortly as we finally "remediate".

Because of this and a subtle propaganda campaign at this point he'll never receive documents from someone like Bradly Manning again

What's subtle about it?

This is partly because they are making an example of Manning

Never underestimate the power of a martyr complex.

and mostly because he's destroyed his reputation in the eyes of a broad swath of Americans

See the Roman Polanski case a couple years back. He's living in France, a fugitive of US justice, having been convicted of drugging and raping an uder-aged girl. He couldn't travel to the UK for fear of extradition to the US, but the UK allowed his lawsuit to proceed, regardless. He was involved via video link, IIRC.

Though the US is a common-law territory, I expect the rules are a bit more strict, but I don't know how much so. However, Assange isn't, in-fact, accusted or charged with any crimes in the US, and extradition laws from the US to other countries are... intentionally weak.

In the USA, and Canada, 15/hr is 450/week before taxes. Assume 400/week net, then add insurance, telephone, transportation, food, internet and children (1). I believe you will run a deficit. If however you are married, and your spouse adds her $15/hr, then you can live comfortably.

Assume 400/week net, then add insurance, telephone, transportation, food, internet and children (1). I believe you will run a deficit.

What are you talking about? I lived on $10/hr for a few years. This is how I did it:

1: Shared a house with 4 other folks. Each one of us occupied a room we used as a bedroom.2: Used public transit.3: Prepared my own meals (in bulk, and froze the excess), took lunch to work and employed the fridge and microwave there.4: Did laundry bi-weekly to save on costs.5: Never "went out

Assume 400/week net, then add insurance, telephone, transportation, food, internet and children (1). I believe you will run a deficit.

What are you talking about? I lived on $10/hr for a few years. This is how I did it:

1: Shared a house with 4 other folks. Each one of us occupied a room we used as a bedroom.2: Used public transit.3: Prepared my own meals (in bulk, and froze the excess), took lunch to work and employed the fridge and microwave there.4: Did laundry bi-weekly to save on costs.5: Never "went out" on the town, or bought luxuries, ever...6: Said "NO" to the fairer sex.

Things have changed now, [for the better], gladly. In fact, you wouldn't recognize me now. But please do not tell me one can't survive on minimum wage.

I'm sure he doesn't really care what was said, or by whom. It is more likely that this is just a shot over the bows as it was as a result of the personal defamation that Wikileaks, a separate entity, was blacklisted by MasterCard.

He has not been a champion of free speech, do you even follow wikileaks or the Assange case?He is a champion of truth and information, and never implied or said that you should not be able to sue someone who lied about you (particularly when that lie cost you tangibly).

Julian Assange is famous for being a tireless champion of free speech. How does he respond to someone saying something nasty about him?

Neither free markets nor free speech work when fraud is permitted.

Mod me down, "libertarians". In your hearts you know I speak the truth.

I'm not a libertarian, just a liberal (e.g. not a democrat) and I know you're full of shit, which is the most popular reason to post as an AC. You haven't said anything that could likely get you shot or fired, so there's no other reason.

That's bullshit. The Swedish authorities are interested in questioning him about two cases of what you'd call 3. degree rape - consensual sex but unconsensually without a condom. That's not even worth prosecuting. So he forgot the condom. Big deal. If he had given them an STD or made them pregnant it would have been a different story, but he didn't. I was just plain old consensual sex without a condom.

Would prosecutors prosecute a woman who lies by saying that she is using pills and a man has sex with her on the condition that she is using pills? If not, this is a clear case of sexual discrimination of men, for which Sweden is notorious.